Plaintiff
moves (DN 13) this Court pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) to
alter or amend the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order
(DN 10) entered on December 12, 2016. The Court's
Memorandum Opinion and Order (DN 10), among other things,
dismissed Trimble County as a Defendant; dismissed
Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985; allowed
official-capacity claims to go forward against Trimble County
Attorney Crystal Heinz regarding the constitutionality of
certain statutes; and dismissed the 42 U.S.C. § 1983
claims against Defendants Heinz, Perry Arnold, and Vittitow
based on prosecutorial immunity. For the reasons set forth
below, Plaintiff's motion will be denied.

I.

Propriety
of invoking Rule 59(e)

Subsection
(e) of Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides: “Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A
motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later
than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). For purposes of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, “judgment” is defined to
“include[] a decree and any order from which an appeal
lies.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(a). Thus, “judgment”
encompasses both a final judgment and an appealable
interlocutory order. Because an order dismissing fewer than
all claims or parties, like the Court's Memorandum
Opinion and Order at issue here, is not a final judgment,
“a Rule 59(e) motion to challenge such an order may
only be filed after the district court enters the final
judgment.” Auto Servs. Co. v. KPMG, LLP, 537
F.3d 853, 856 (8th Cir. 2008); WSM, Inc. v. Wheeler Media
Servs., Inc., 810 F.2d 113, 115 n.2 (6th Cir. 1987).

Thus,
Plaintiff's invocation of Rule 59(e) is improper.
Nonetheless, the Court has considered the arguments put forth
in Plaintiff's motion and finds no reason to alter or
amend its prior Memorandum Opinion and Order.

Trimble
County

In his
motion to reconsider, Plaintiff argues that Trimble County is
a person for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, the
Court did not dismiss Trimble County as a Defendant because
it was not a “person” under § 1983 but
rather because all of the official-capacity claims against
the employees of Trimble County had been dismissed.
Therefore, no claims remained against Trimble County, and
dismissal of Trimble County was appropriate.

42
U.S.C. § 1985 claims

The
second clause of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) provides that a
cause of action for conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
exists where:

two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding,
hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due
course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to
deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to
injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or
attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of
persons, to the equal protection of the laws[.]

42 U.S.C. § 1985(2).

Plaintiff's
complaint alleged that Defendants conspired to deter him from
filing complaints with Kentucky agencies, conspired to
interfere with his correspondence with a government agency,
and intimidated him and retaliated against him for attempting
to be a witness in a criminal investigation.[1] He alleged that
the interference occurred “by intimidation and threats
to continue to prosecute him and conspired to interfere with
Plaintiff's correspondence with a government
agency.” In this section of the complaint, Plaintiff
did allege that the interference was due to his race or
nationality, but did not state what his race or nationality
is. Elsewhere in his complaint, he stated that he is a
“lawfully admitted alien.”

In its
Memorandum Opinion and Order (DN 10), the Court found that
Plaintiff included “only conclusory allegations that
the Defendants acted in concert and did not allege that an
agreement between two or more persons existed to discriminate
against [him] based on [his] membership in a constitutionally
protected class, ” such as ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.